Jan Assmann concludes that there is a difference between collective and social memory, as memory has evolved from a biological framework to a cultural means. Collective memory and collective concept are repeated through societal practices and initiations that act as a way for generations to guarantee survival. Assmann goes on to differentiate between communicative memory, which comprises variations of collective memory that are founded on everyday infrastructures and has a “limited temporal horizon” of eighty-to-hundred years in the past, as well as cultural memory, which is “characterized by its distance to the everyday” and has a “fixed point in which its horizon doesn’t change with passing time.” [1]

Pierre Nora focused on memory’s permanent evolution, susceptible to remembering and forgetting, whereas history is an incomplete construction. Nora goes on to discuss how memory, while archival, grounds people to an “eternal present” and adapts to what flatters it. History, on the other hand, “calls for analysis and criticism” and is considered a portrayal of the past. [2]

Considering the case for Israeli history, there are two competing narratives, the Zionist account and the New Historian narrative.The Zionist narrative used non-scholarly accounts of the past that were translated into English from Hebrew by public officials with the intention of garnering sympathy for Zionism. Whereas the New Historians used recently released archival documents that revised the picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict to show Israel as a strong and deliberate force. [3]

For example, Zionist memory believed that Israel acted within a realistic paradigm during the 1956 War. The Zionist narrative depicts the 1956 War as a responsive war that was inevitable and started by the united Arab nations, which were increasingly attacking Israel’s borders. Israel is depicted as being victimized even though it attempted peace talks with the Arabs. However, New Historians, using more technical documents, not based on memory, portray the 1956 War as a war of choice on Israel’s part. The New Historians found that Israel had wanted and searched for a war, that Israel had other alternatives and that Israel had stronger battlefield forces than that of the Arab nations. Also, conveniently forgotten when discussing the 1956 War was the internal split within Israeli politics between Sharett and Ben-Gurion. Sharett preferred diplomacy and negotiations, whereas Ben-Gurion preferred a hard-line retaliatory approach. [4]

Ben-Gurion won out over Sharett by utilizing the Zionist memory of events and narrative playing up the victimization of Israel in the past at the hands of the Arab nations. However, the New Historians have been able to prove that Israel had deliberately provoked attacks along its borders by refusing to alleviate the Palestinian refugee problem; it encouraged Israeli settlements and escalated reprisal raids. The use of Ben-Gurion’s Zionist memory led to the institutionalization of the military, which led to Israel’s military character through value, formula and ideology, therefore legitimizing memory over history. [5]

MR. PRICE: Good afternoon, everybody. And thanks for joining the call. We wanted to convene this call to preview next week’s activities at the U.N. General Assembly up in New York City.

First ground rule, this call is on the record. It is embargoed until the conclusion of the call, so we would ask you not tweet or otherwise use this material until the call concludes.

We have three senior administration officials on today’s call. First we have Ben Rhodes; he’s the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. We have Steve Pomper; he is the National Security Council Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs. And we have Celeste Wallander; she’s the National Security Council Senior Director for Russia.

So, again, this call is on the record and embargoed until its conclusion. And I will turn it over to Ben to start.

MR. RHODES: Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I’ll just say a few opening comments and go through some of the main elements of the President’s schedule at the U.N., and then Steve can talk through a number of the summits that we’re hosting or participating in. And Celeste can talk through the bilat with President Putin of Russia.

First of all, every year at the U.N it’s an opportunity for us to try to address global crises, but also to make progress on an affirmative agenda. And this year is, of course, no different. There have been some very noteworthy, positive developments since last year’s session. For instance, last year the President had to convene an emergency session to deal with the spread of Ebola. The collective action that came out of that effort successfully stopped the spread of Ebola, and now we are working hard to try to stamp it out while also building a broader architecture of global health security.

Last year we were in the midst of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. This year we clearly will have an opportunity to mark on the global stage the progress that has come with the nuclear deal, which is set to be implemented and will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

The President goes to the U.N. focused on a number of affirmative priorities that are represented in this schedule. Our commitment to development and the goal of eradicating extreme poverty is going to be on display as we attend the Sustainable Development Goals Summit meeting. The President’s commitment to build capacity around international peacekeeping, which has been a priority of ours at the United Nations, will be on display at the summit he’s convening.

Importantly, climate change will be a focus at the United Nations this year. This has been a core priority of the President’s, at home and abroad. It’s been a priority of the Secretary General. And this session at the U.N. is an important opportunity for nations to come together once more before the Paris discussions at the conclusion of the year where we’re aiming to reach a global agreement to combat climate change.

Of course, we will have to be addressing some very significant global challenges. Certainly, the counter-ISIL efforts, which was a focus last year, will continue to be a focus this year given the summit the President is convening. And it relates to both the situation in Iraq and Syria, and our efforts to combat ISIL, and also the humanitarian challenges that are emanating from the region will certainly be a topic this year.

And the situation in Ukraine continues to be of significant concern, and our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine will be front and center throughout our discussions, particularly with President Putin.

So with that as a backdrop, let me just go through the schedule, and turn it over to my colleagues to go into more detail.

The President will arrive on Sunday afternoon, and the first thing he will be doing is giving remarks at the Closing Session of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. This is the world’s commitment to embrace a set of sustainable development goals that hold out extraordinary promise for lifting people out of poverty and promoting the type of development that, again, will lead to not just better standards of living for individuals, but broader and shared economic growth and good governance. And Steve can speak to that. That’s the main element of his agenda on Sunday at the United Nations.

On Monday morning the President will address the United Nations General Assembly. Again, this will be an opportunity for him to review the progress that’s been made over the course of the last year while addressing a range of global challenges. And he will be making the case about the type of leadership that is needed to build on the progress that’s been made, but also to confront the very real challenges we face. And I’d be happy to take any additional questions around the speech.

Following his address, he will be having a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi of India. This will give the two leaders an opportunity to build on the discussions they had earlier this year during the President’s historic trip to India. We are deeply committed to strengthening the U.S.-Indian relationship, building our economic and commercial ties, advancing our political and security cooperation in Asia and around the world. Notably, India will be critical to a successful global effort to combat climate change, so the two leaders will certainly address their shared vision of how to approach the upcoming meetings in Paris.

Following the bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi, the President will attend, as he does every year, the lunch that is hosted by the Secretary General for the leaders. And he’ll have an opportunity to have brief meetings, as he does every year, with the U.N. Secretary General and the President of the U.N. General Assembly.

Then the President will convene a summit on peacekeeping, which again has been a priority for us at the United Nations. Steve will speak to that in more detail. Following the summit on peacekeeping, the President will have his bilateral meeting with President Putin of Russia. And I’ll let Celeste describe the agenda for that. And then that evening, the President will host his traditional reception for the leaders who are attending the U.N. General Assembly.

On Tuesday, the main event on the President’s schedule is a summit that we are convening that is focused on countering ISIL and combating violent extremism. This builds on the meeting the President chaired last year — the Security Council focused on this issue — and brings together our broad counter-ISIL coalition and other partners committed to combating terrorism and countering violent extremism.

I’ll stop there. I would just note we expect that there will be additional bilateral meetings that may be scheduled in the coming days, so we will keep you updated as that comes together.

But I’ll turn it over to Steve now to go through the summit.

MR. POMPER: Hi. So thanks for joining us on this call. And some of what I say will be a little bit reiterative of what Ben has already mentioned, but I’ll try and give a little bit more detail, and then leave plenty of time for questions.

So this is the 70th anniversary of the United Nations’ founding, and it’s the kickoff, therefore, to the U.N. General Assembly’s 70th session.

And high-level week — which is what this is — it’s always a busy time for the diplomatic community, but particularly so in the 10-year anniversaries, which are really a particular focal point for the world leaders to come in and hone in on the challenges facing the international community and to plot a course for the future. And really, that’s a consistent theme that unites the three major leader summits that President Obama will be participating in.

So Ben has already alluded to them, but I’ll just highlight a few details with respect to each of them. So on Sunday, he’ll be speaking at the Secretary General’s Summit on Sustainable Development Goals, which are also known in shorthand as the SDGs. The adoption of these goals marks the culmination of a multiyear process where the international community has come together and thought through I think the 17 goals that are going to organize its work on development for the next 15 years.

The last set of goals, the Millennium Development Goals, are timing out. Those goals really did galvanize international action on a host of issues, including reducing the global share of people living on very, very small amounts of money every day, helping to achieve gender parity in primary school enrollment, reducing rates of child mortality, et cetera. So these are really very important organizing principles for the international community’s work on development, and the President’s participation in this even demonstrates a commitment to the agenda and our sense that its implementation will both bolster, frankly, international peace and stability, and promote inclusive economic development and American values all around the world. So we’ve very excited to be able to participate in that event.

On Monday, the President will be co-hosting a summit on U.N. peacekeeping with Secretary General Ban and eight other co-hosts. Now, U.N. peacekeeping has been — never been, I should say, more stretched or more important than it is to international peace and security right now. I believe there are probably 100,000 troops deployed around the world under U.N. blue helmets in something like 16 missions. It’s a critical tool for the advancement of both U.S. security and humanitarian interests, and we have a very strong interest in seeing this system sort of strengthened as we sort of face the future.

Last year, Vice President Biden co-hosted the summit where participants were invited to make concrete pledges in support of a more modern, nimble and capable U.N. peacekeeping architecture. And this year’s summit is the culmination of a years’ worth of efforts, in the meantime, to generate very concrete commitments towards those ends.

We expect to hear very significant pledges, some from states that will be returning to U.N. peacekeeping in important ways after years of essentially non-participation. And we also anticipate this will be a forum for states to support reform initiatives recommended by a high-level panel appointed by the Secretary General that will also help gird this instrument for the future.

The final big multilateral event in which the President will participate will be on Tuesday. It’s an event focused on countering ISIL, and, more broadly, on countering violent extremism and on the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters. This summit will focus not only on counter-ISIL coalition efforts, but, more broadly, on what the international community is doing to counter violent extremism a year after the President chaired a Security Council summit that produced a resolution on countering foreign fighters. And we’re going to be looking at how implementation of that resolution has been going and what more we can be doing as an international community to counter that threat.

So really, this is an event that’s about addressing a broad spectrum of issues relating to the terrorism threat at every stage in its life cycle. And the summit will include leaders and other officials from governments and other multilateral organization, and also, importantly, partners in civil society who are critical to the countering violent extremism effort.

I think that’s all I’m going to say about the summits right now. Maybe it’s time to turn it over to Celeste.

MS. WALLANDER: Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Ben and Ned. So as we confirmed today, there is a bilat between President Obama and President Putin scheduled for Monday. The two agenda items that we will focus on in that summit are the continuing situation in Ukraine, and, of course, the new issues raised by Russia’s involvement in Syria.

On Ukraine, this moment comes at a particularly opportune time. The implementation of all of the elements of the Minsk Agreement, which were signed by President Putin and President Poroshenko, Chancellor Merkel, and President Hollande back in February, are coming to a critical turning point in October. Ukraine has scheduled local elections for October 25th, and it remains insufficiently clear that Russia is committed to implementing its obligations under the Minsk Agreement, which is to support a local election that is consistent with Ukrainian law and that will be overseen by the international community — that is, specifically, the OSCE and its particular election-monitoring agency, ODIHR.

So this is an opportunity for President Obama to make crystal-clear to President Putin that the United States supports full implementation of the Minsk Agreement; fully supports the diplomacy of Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande in advancing implementation; and make clear our expectations that Russia, and President Putin in particular, fully lives up to the commitments that Russia overtook in signing that implementation agreement back in February.

Those elections are critical because they unlock the opportunity to implement all the other elements of that Minsk Implementation Agreement, including the special status for regions of eastern Ukraine, constitutional reforms that have made their way to the Ukrainian Rada, and then eventually to get, before the end of the year, to Russia’s commitment to fully withdraw its military forces and return control of the international border — the Ukrainian-Russian international border back to the Ukrainian government.

So October is really important, and the opportunity to speak to President Putin directly is something that President Obama will embrace in this bilat.

The second issue that the Presidents will discuss will be — Russia has now announced clear military involvement in Syria, which goes beyond the assistance and the training that Russia has noted that it has been involved in for years in Syria, and has now involved the direct Russian military presence in Syria — which we’ve talked about in other for a, but I can talk about in more specificity if needed.

And in particular, President Obama will seek to understand what Russian government means when it states that it is enhancing or increasing its military involvement in Syria in order to support efforts to counter ISIL — because the United States certainly would welcome a constructive Russian contribution to counter ISIL — so the meeting is an opportunity to understand whether and how President Putin can see the Russian involvement and increased military presence might lead to that objective, and to make clear, of course, our longstanding policy and strongly held view that the only resolution to a conflict in Syria which allows us to tackle the problem of ISIL obviously involves a political transition of the Syrian regime — and that remains as key to the successful resolution of the challenge of ISIL in Syria as any other element that the Russians may bring to bear in terms of a new military presence.

So let me leave it there.

Q Celeste, you mentioned a few of the other conversations that have happened between the U.S. and Russia. And I’m wondering if there were any assurances or any more clarity that what Russia is doing there is not going to be enormously destabilizing or destructive to the situation as it stands.

And secondly, a year after we heard the President’s resolution on foreign fighters, we’re hearing from military leaders that the flow continues as it has been. As soon as you get rid of them, more pour in. So is there going to be an effort to kind of realign or change the effort in that respect?

Thanks a lot.

MR. RHODES: So I’ll take the second question, Michelle, then I’ll turn it over to Celeste.

First of all, I think we have seen progress over the course of the last year. There have been significant efforts to work with dozens of countries to share more information about the flow of foreign fighters to align some of our laws and authorities that relate to stopping the flow of foreign fighters to address the challenge on the border between Turkey and Syria. So nations have taken concrete steps to enhance their own capabilities in this space and we have been able to disrupt some of the foreign fighter flows.

And, frankly, we’ve seen some progress in recent weeks as Syrian Kurds have been able to take territory along that Turkish border that was previously used by ISIL to move fighters into Syria. That said, you are absolutely right that there continues to be a challenge of foreign fighters going to Syria and then potentially leaving the battlefield and returning to countries where they might conduct attacks.

That’s part of the reason why the agenda for the summit is broader than just the foreign fighter issues. So, for instance, we’re going to be focused on efforts to counter violent extremism. This gets at what are respective countries doing to counter the ISIL ideology — which is the attraction, in part, that draws people to Syria — just as we’ll have an opportunity to update our efforts on the military side in degrading the ISIL safe haven in Syria.

So the purpose of the summit is to look across all these different elements of the challenge — how are we using our military to go after ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq; how are we using our various authorities and capabilities, and sharing information to stop the flow of foreign fighters; and also how are we getting at the ideology that has been an attraction for some people to go to Syria.

Clearly there’s much more work to be done. This is going to a long-term effort. The counter-ISIL campaign is going to be measured in years. But what we do have is a significant coalition of countries that are seized with this threat and that are enhancing their capabilities, and that are joining with us in this effort. And I’d note, for instance, importantly, that Prime Minister of Abadi of Iraq will be attending that summit given the challenge he faces in his country.

But I’ll stop there and turn it over to Celeste.

MS. WALLANDER: On assurances, we haven’t gotten any specific assurances in the conversations that have taken place so far with Russian officials. The Russian public narrative has been very focused on the argument that the way to counter ISIL is to work with the Assad regime. President Putin gave a speech just this week where he made that argument. And this has certainly been one of the themes that Foreign Minister Lavrov has consistently advanced.

We think they got this backwards. We think that one of the reasons why ISIL has taken hold and been able to attract support and gain recruits is because of the actions of the Assad regime. So there’s clearly a difference of views in that regard. And right now, that difference of views tends to take place — at least coming from the Russian side — in public rhetoric and speeches. So this is an opportunity for the Presidents to talk directly about this very key issue face-to-face and one-on-one.

Q Hi, Ben. Can you give us any indication whether President Obama might meet with President Rouhani, if there has been an overture to the Iranians, if the Iranians are giving you any indication whether they’re willing to meet, whether it’s in a bilat or in a broader setting at the reception?

MR. RHODES: Thanks, Robin. We currently don’t have any plans for a meeting with President Rouhani, and we’re really not expecting one.

Secretary Kerry I’m sure will have the opportunity to have discussions with Foreign Minister Zarif. That has been our effective and direct channel of communication with the Iranians on a host of different issues. And I’m sure there will be other activities among foreign ministers who are engaged in the P5+1 discussions.

Our general approach to this in the past has been that the President is willing to engage President Rouhani if it can make constructive progress. Back in 2013, they did not meet but they spoke on the phone. And that was an important moment because that was the initiation of the public discussions devoted to the P5+1 process that ultimately resulted in the nuclear deal. So they had a clear purpose for that engagement at that time to try to catalyze those negotiations.

So again, we don’t expect a meeting at this session. We do expect engagement with the Iranians, however, through Secretary Kerry, of course. And I’d also note that some our key allies who share many of our interests and concerns as it relates to regional issues regularly engage President Rouhani. And so we’ll have the opportunity to follow up with them as they have those discussions.

Q Hi, everyone. Thanks for doing the call. I was hoping that you could talk in a little bit more detail about the climate summit on Sunday. Are you looking at specific deliverables, pressure on sort of non-players to step up their game ahead of Paris? Do you think there will be any announcements or conclusions out of there? And also can you talk a little bit about what the Vice President’s role this year will be at UNGA, whether he and the President will be doing something jointly and/or whether he’ll be doing some things on his own? Thanks.

MR. RHODES: Thanks, Margaret. So in terms of the Secretary General’s event on Sunday, President Obama won’t be attending the climate discussions. He’ll be attending the SDG summit. However, we very much welcome the Secretary General’s focus on climate change.

And what we want to get out of the discussions in New York is a sense of momentum for a successful outcome in Paris. Many nations have made commitments in terms of their emissions reductions targets, in terms of their contributions to Green Climate Fund, in terms of various steps that can be taken to phase out the use of fossil fuels, but some countries have been more forthcoming than others. So I think, first and foremost, we welcome the Secretary General’s effort to catalyze further action from all nations — major economies and developing countries — around this challenge. And we see the U.N. this year as a key milestone on the pathway to Paris.

Now, in terms of what President Obama will be focused on, first and foremost, of course, we’ve done significant amount of work on the domestic side with respect to the Climate Action Plan to ensure that we are going into Paris with very concrete steps that we’re prepared to take to support a successful outcome. But we’ve also spent a lot of time — and I can tell you in his diplomatic engagements this year, climate has been front and center. So in terms of how I think this plays out, you heard Pope Francis here at the White House the other day issue a very strong call on the United States and the nations of the world to confront climate change.

You then will have President Xi Jinping of China here tonight and tomorrow. Climate change will be high on the agenda in that bilateral meeting. As the two biggest emitters of the world, the leadership shown by the U.S. and China heading into the U.N. session and the meetings in Paris will be critical to a successful outcome. So after the breakthrough last year in terms of the United States and China both announcing targets in terms of emissions reductions, we’ll have an opportunity to put some additional meat on the bones in the discussions over the next two days about the commitments the United States and China will be taking into Paris.

So I think what you can see very clearly is the moral authority of the Pope behind global efforts to combat climate change, the leadership of the Secretary General in making this at the top of the U.N.’s agenda at this moment in time, the leadership of the two largest emitters in the world coming together to support aggressive action to reduce emissions and have a successful agreement in Paris. And then the President’s meeting with Prime Minister Modi will be very important because India, of course, is also another major economy — major emitter and we’ll want to continue the discussions that we had in India about what Prime Minister Modi is prepared to do to support successful international action against climate change.

So this will feature in the President’s diplomacy. It will feature in his remarks certainly. And I think taken together, all of those different elements provide very strong momentum towards Paris and, frankly, puts pressure on countries to step up and make some meaningful commitments.

I don’t know, Steve, if you have anything to add on that.

Next question.

Q Ben, can you just talk a little bit more about the priorities that the President will lay out going forward? You already said that he is going to talk about some of the accomplishments, but what do you see as a couple key things that he is going to emphasize with this? And also, how significant in the big picture of the attendance of Raul Castro is as well as his speech — can you put that into some perspective for us? Thanks.

MR. RHODES: Thanks, I always appreciate Cuba questions, Chris. I think it’s very significant. This is Raul Castro’s first time at UNGA. It comes on the heels of the United States and Cuba establishing diplomatic relations earlier this summer, and on the heels of Pope Francis traveling to both Cuba and the United States on this trip of his. I think it’s a symbol that things have changed and that the United States’ approach to Cuba has changed.

And one thing that you can be sure of is that the nations of the world overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, support the President’s policy. One of the many things that was wrong with our Cuba policy is that it was succeeding only in isolating ourselves. It was a major irritant in the hemisphere, but even around the world, frankly, we did not have any support for a policy of embargo and isolation that was only failing to improve the life of the Cuban people.

So I think, symbolically, it’s important that President Castro is coming to the U.N. General Assembly. I think it’s a symbol that we’re in a new era. I think that the world will welcome the steps that President Obama has taken, and we see this as a way to unlock positive cooperation particularly in our hemisphere, but also around the world.

Now, we’ll have differences, and particularly with respect to human rights, we have been very clear with Cuba that we’ll continue to raise those differences. But we also believe that the best way to advance our interests and our values in Cuba is to open it.

I’d expect that the President will have some opportunity to see President Castro at some point during the days that we’re there. So we’ll certainly keep you updated on any interaction that they may have.

On the question about the President’s speech, first and foremost, I think the President made clear time and again at the U.N. the necessity of an effective international system that can solve problems and advance collective action and burden-sharing. So when you look at our affirmative agenda in the world, so much of it depends upon building coalitions and advancing collective action.

So, with respect to climate change, we need all of the nations of the world to step up and be a part of the solution. With respect to peacekeeping that can help resolve conflicts and advance stability, the concrete contributions that we are seeking with other countries to U.N. peacekeeping missions will help make us more secure and help make the world more secure.

With respect to development, we have the opportunity to promote global health security in ways that can prevent pandemic that could threaten us and save countless lives around the world just as we have the opportunity to lift many people out of poverty in the coming years.

So there’s a set of affirmative items I think the President will be speaking to. He’ll also be underscoring the importance, however, of there being a rules-based approach to solving problems. Now, some of that is on the firmer side, as well; the Transpacific Trade Partnership that we’re pursuing aims to establish rules of the road that apply to trade that opens markets, but also protects workers and the environment.

But when we look at conflict, the President will certainly be focused on the situation in Syria and Iraq, and he’ll be focused on the situation in Ukraine. And there, too, I think our focus is going to be on the fact that there has to be a cost for a nation like Russia that is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and that cost has been imposed through sanctions, even as we’re focused on and have a preference for diplomacy in resolving that crisis.

At the same time, in Syria, even as we have an aggressive military effort underway against ISIL, the only lasting resolution to that challenge is for there to be a political settlement, as well.

So I were to say there’s a common thread between (inaudible) and diplomacy. Diplomacy has borne significant fruit this year with the Iran deal, with the Cuba opening, with the advances on the TPP negotiations. Diplomacy is necessary to bring about a conclusion, or at least a political resolution, as it relates to the situation in Syria. Diplomacy is necessary to resolving the tensions in Ukraine. But diplomacy has to be backed by teeth, and, in some cases, that’s force, as we’re using against ISIL. In some cases that’s sanctions, as we’re using against Russia.

But in all cases, I think the case the President will be making to the world is we need to remain invested in an international order that can solve problems and hold people accountable when they break the rules.

Q Hi. Thanks a ton for doing the call. My question is for Celeste. The administration has repeatedly said that Russia’s intentions in Syria remain unclear. I was wondering if there’s been any update, if you could provide more clarity as to what Russia is perhaps up to in Syria, and if not, why is it still unclear? Thanks a ton.

MS. WALLANDER: Thanks. As I tried to indicate earlier, we have a lot of public statements from Russian officials, senior Russian officials — including President Putin himself — about what he argues is necessary to successfully counter ISIL. Since that argument doesn’t fit with our understanding of what’s necessary to counter ISIL, it doesn’t really hold water as far as we’re concerned, we’re going to use the opportunity to talk to President Putin and understand what he means by that, and make clear what we think is necessary to successfully counter ISIL, and test whether Russia’s efforts to basically deal itself in to a counter-ISIL effort will yield a constructive approach.

So there’s a lot of talk, and now it’s time for clarity and for Russia to come clear — come clean and come clear on just exactly how it proposes to be a constructive contributor to what is already an ongoing multi-nation coalition.

So, no, I’m not going to — that’s a question for President Putin, and it’s a question we’ll be posing to President Putin.

MR. RHODES: Let me add just very quickly in addition to the current military deployments that we see, President Putin had reached out and initiated a phone call with President Obama earlier this year to discuss his concerns about the situation in Syria and to discuss the potential for a political resolution.

Now, we continue to have very serious differences with the Russian government about the nature of the Syrian government that would emerge from that political resolution. We believe Bashar al-Assad will have to leave power as a part of any durable solution given that he has lost the legitimacy with his own people. Russia is continuing to support Assad.

But again, even as we have this discussion about the very specific issue related to military deployments, I think we will want to be discussing, what are the prospects for advancing a political resolution? And clearly any successful political resolution would have to benefit from the support of Russia and the United States and the countries in the region, and of course, importantly, the Syrian people. So the political element will be discussed as well as the military.

Q Thank you. It seems like it’s been a real long time before the President and Putin have met face to face. Can you explain policy-wise what seems to be a shift away from a position of isolation, particularly a shift that’s happening when Russia is only escalating its intervention in Syria? And is the President going to walk into that meeting with any new clarity or any new elements to the U.S. position in Syria?

MR. RHODES: Thanks, Margaret. Well, you’re absolutely right. It has been some time since they had a bilateral encounter. We canceled the summit that had been planned in Russia for a variety of reasons. And we have not had bilateral discussions.

They have seen each other at global summits like the G20, and had conversations on the sidelines of those summits, but frankly, given the situation in Ukraine, we wanted to make very clear that Russia was going to pay a cost for its actions in terms of not being isolated from groups like the G8, which is now the G7, and in terms of the sanctions we’ve imposed.

All that said, at every juncture we said that we remain open to engagement if it can make progress. They’ve spoken on the phone a number of times. I think — to your question very specifically — given both the situation in Ukraine and the critical juncture that we’re at there, and the situation in Syria, it would be irresponsible to not have a face-to-face encounter and to not directly address with President Putin our positions and concerns on these two issues.

I should also add that President Obama was urged to have this meeting with President Putin by some of our closest European allies who thought it would be constructive in the context of Minsk for him to hear directly from us as well as them about the importance of following through on the Minsk agreement. So this is something that we’re doing with respect to Ukraine very much in coordination with our European allies who have taken the lead on many elements of the diplomacy with Russia, even as we’ve of course led with them in imposing consequences on Russia for its actions.

I think with respect to Syria we’ll be making — the President will have the opportunity to make clear to President Putin that we share the determination to counter ISIL, that we welcome constructive contributions to counter ISIL. But at the same time, we believe that one of the principal motivating factors for people who are fighting with ISIL is the Assad regime. And its zero justification, obviously, for the horrific extremism we’ve seen in Syria, it’s simply a pragmatic fact that if there is a political transition in which Assad leaves then, frankly, we have the opportunity to better focus on going after ISIL because there will be a better political context in the country to do so.

So I think that both — as I said, both the military and the political components will be discussed, and the key question, right, is how do those two converge. And how do you have both a successful counterterrorism effort against ISIL alongside a political resolution that can ultimately restore some semblance of stability to Syria.

Q Thank you. Ben, quick question regarding the conversation that Secretary Kerry will have with Foreign Minister Zarif. As you said, if there is nothing to be happening between two leaders, what do you expect to get out of that now that the deal is in the implementation phase other than the nuclear deal? Are you hoping — are you seeing signals that the Iranians are more willing to talk about Syria? Or is that — we know there’s going to be that bilateral on Saturday, then the P5+1 will have another one on Monday evening. What do you expect to get out of that?

MR. RHODES: Well, I don’t want to speak too much for Secretary Kerry. I’ll just say a couple of things. Number one, I think it is important to discuss implementation of the Iran deal. We are nearing adoption day, at which point Iran will have to take — or begin to take its significant nuclear steps. And in terms of how that implementation goes forward, it’s always important to have direct communication among the P5+1 and with the Iranians, because there are significant moving parts associated with Iran’s nuclear steps, the institution of the verification regime, and then, after Iran completes its key steps, the provision of our sanctions relief.

I think, secondly, we always raise with the Iranians the detained Americans. And so I’m certain that there will be a clear message about our continued and grave concerns about the ongoing detention of Americans in Iran.

With respect to regional issues, as we’ve made clear throughout the debate over the Iran deal here, we continue to have significant differences and concerns about Iranian destabilizing activities in the region — whether it’s in Syria or Iraq or Yemen, or threats to Israel. In the past, issues like Yemen and Syria have come up in these discussions. At times, Foreign Minister Zarif in his public comments has suggested a desire to play a constructive role with respect to regional challenges, but we have not seen actions from Iran that follow through on that. So, for instance, with respect to Syria, again, their ongoing support for the Assad regime is what — is part of what is fueling this conflict.

So I would imagine that regional issues may come up, but again, our position has been to underscore our concern with destabilizing Iranian activities. And again, we’d have to see in actions, not just words, that Iran, after this nuclear deal, is prepared to move in a more constructive and less-destabilizing direction on these issues.

Q Yes, hi. Thanks for doing the call. You’ve insisted on the fact that Mr. Putin is the one who asked for the meeting at the U.N., but what kind of interaction are you — can you expect? Do you believe — does the President believe that Vladimir Putin can be trusted or that he can be a partner in Syria?

MR. RHODES: The Russians requested the meeting. President Obama, like I said, believes that it would be wrong to not engage at this critical time given the pressing issues.

I think our approach with respect to trust is one of watching deeds, as well as listening to words. With respect to Ukraine, what Russia says publicly has often not matched what the world has seen happening — whether it’s the provision of arms to separatists or other activities. So look, we would be measuring the outcome of this meeting not just by the nature of their discussion by what follows.

The one thing I would say is even as we’ve had these differences — and very significant ones — on Ukraine and Syria, Russia was a very constructive partner in the P5+1 process. They very much were united with the P5+1 and insisting on a good deal. So it does demonstrate that we can have sustained cooperation on critical global issues even as we have very significant differences. And we would not want to deny ourselves the ability to have that cooperation because of our differences on important issues.

So again, that’s a demonstration of the fact that we will follow these things in deeds, not words. And Ukraine, the deeds have rarely matched the words. But in the Iranian nuclear issue, Russia did follow through on its commitments and played a constructive role.

Q Yes, thank you. Thanks for having the call. I’m just wondering about the meeting with Raul Castro. Are you trying to set up a bilat? Are you thinking they might run into each other in the hall? How hard are you guys pushing that?

MR. RHODES: I don’t know that they’ll have time for an extended bilat. I would just expect that they’ll be able to see each other at some point over the course of the several days. They’ll be both at the U.N. I expect on Monday and perhaps Tuesday morning.

So I think that they’d just look for an opportunity to exchange some words. But we’ll keep you posted if anything is scheduled. What I would say is that they spoke on the phone in advance of the Pope’s visit to Cuba and the United States. They were able to note the — and speak the first time since the establishment of diplomatic relations. Note that there are areas where we are working to cooperate constructively — whether it’s on counter narcotics, counterterrorism, the provision of health assistance in Haiti, which we just did jointly with Cuban medical professionals — while also continuing to have very real differences from our standpoint with respect to the human rights of the Cuban people. From their side, certainly issues like Guantanamo come up. So I think they’ll have some opportunity to speak with one another and continue this process of normalization.

And I think the message to the world — and it will be very powerful that the United States has turned the page on a failed policy, that we’re willing to pursue our interests and values through engagement. And I believe that will be very welcome here in the hemisphere and around the world.

And one opportunity for me to note that one area where there’s been U.S. and Cuban involvement is in the Colombian peace process, where Cuba has hosted discussions between the Colombian government — a close stalwart, ally, and security partner of the United States — and the FARC. And we’ve had an envoy who has been able to participate in those talks and we just had a significant breakthrough. That’s separate and apart from our bilateral normalization process, but I think it shows that we’re committed to broader efforts in the hemisphere to solve problems.

All right, thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. And we’ll keep you updated as any other bilateral meetings are scheduled. I wouldn’t anticipate there being many, but there may be one or two so we’ll keep you posted in the coming days.

Today the President hosted His Holiness Pope Francis at the White House and thanked him for the ways in which he is inspiring people around the world to embrace justice, mercy, and compassion, particularly toward those who have been marginalized. The President and Pope Francis discussed their shared values and commitments on a wide range of issues, including our moral responsibility to provide refuge for people who are forced to flee from their homelands; the belief that we have an obligation to seize the historic opportunity to end extreme poverty within a generation; the conviction that all members of the human family have equal value and infinite worth and should have the opportunity to realize safe and productive futures for themselves; the belief that reconciliation can happen not only between people but also between nations; the conviction that we must secure the unalienable right of all people to practice their faith according to the dictates of conscience, standing against those who would target people for violence, persecution, or discrimination based on their religion; and the duty to manage the resources of the earth today in such a way that will allow our children and grandchildren to live their lives abundantly tomorrow.

To mark this historic meeting and advance these shared values and objectives, the President is pursuing the following initiatives:

Solidarity with People in Crisis

The human toll of the world’s humanitarian crises is staggering. Over 100 million people around the world are beset by conflict, food insecurity, and natural disasters. Around the world, the people at greatest risk include religious minorities and people persecuted for their political beliefs. In the Middle East alone, 36.5 million people require humanitarian aid due to the conflicts in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. South Sudan and Yemen are on the brink of famine. In an instant 750,000 homes were damaged or destroyed in the Nepal earthquake, and families and communities in West Africa are still recovering from the social and economic impacts of Ebola. We have a collective responsibility not only to help those in need, but to work together to address the root causes of conflict and to ensure that all people have access to economic opportunity. The United States has a long history of assisting people in times of crisis. As the world’s largest humanitarian donor, the U.S. Government has provided over $6.5 billion in life-saving food, healthcare, water, and shelter this year, not including our response to the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. United Nations (UN) appeals have surpassed $19 billion in 2015, and have received only 40 percent of the required funding to address basic humanitarian needs. The United States urges the international community to contribute more robustly to UN humanitarian appeals and to non-governmental organizations responding to these crises, and work together to coordinate assistance.

·Providing Refuge to the Most Vulnerable: Since its founding, the United States has offered freedom and opportunity to refugees fleeing the world’s most dangerous and desperate situations. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program reflects the core values of the United States and our strong tradition of providing a safe haven for the oppressed. In response to the historic levels of refugee displacement around the world, the United States intends to increase the number of refugees the nation resettles annually, up from the 70,000 level of recent years. In Fiscal Year 2016, the United States aims to admit at least 85,000 refugees, including at least 10,000 Syrian refugees. In Fiscal Year 2017, the United States projects further expanding the program to a minimum of 100,000 refugees. In order to broaden access to the program, the United States will also expand the number of processing locations to include Erbil, Iraq, and work to add other locations with high numbers of refugees and other displaced persons.

·Helping Support Syrians: The United States is committed to providing humanitarian relief to those in crisis, including Syrians displaced within their own country, and those sheltering in neighboring countries. As the single largest donor to address the Syrian crisis, we are committed to continuing to provide relief to Syrians, and on September 21 announced an additional $419 million in humanitarian assistance. Since the beginning of the crisis, the United States has provided over $4.5 billion in humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict. This assistance provides healthcare, food, water, and basic necessities to people suffering in all 14 Governorates of Syria and with nearly $2.3 billion directly supporting Syrian refugees in neighboring countries.

·Protecting Minorities in the Middle East: In Iraq and Syria, where ISIL has brutally targeted minority groups in particular, including religious minorities, the United States is leading a global coalition that seeks to degrade, defeat, and ultimately destroy ISIL. Beyond the military campaign, we are working to enable minorities and other displaced individuals to return to their homes in areas reclaimed from ISIL. On September 15, the Department of Defense approved up to $75 million for relief supplies to help address immediate lifesaving needs for displaced Iraqis, including minorities. The Administration has appointed a Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the Near East and South and Central Asia, who will help ensure that the urgent needs of these communities are taken into consideration in our military and humanitarian planning, and our multi-pronged efforts to assist in the return of these communities to their ancestral homes are implemented as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The United States is advocating for international stabilization assistance to address the specific needs of minority-populated areas reclaimed from ISIL. We are working to create greater security for minority communities as part of our overall security assistance to the Government of Iraq, and will support the integration of these communities’ self-defense units into the formal national security architecture in cooperation with Iraqi and Kurdish authorities. The United States is also designating a Special Coordinator for Iraq’s Minorities, based at U.S. Embassy Baghdad, providing a high-level U.S. advocate for minority communities to support the inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups in formal security structures, post-ISIL reconstruction, and reconciliation programs. The United States, alongside over 50 countries and numerous NGOs, participated in the September 8 Paris Conference on Victims of Religious and Ethnic Violence in the Middle East, which recognized a pressing necessity to protect and preserve those communities and cultures threatened in Iraq and Syria.

·Conference on Religious Minorities in the Middle East and South and Central Asia: The protection of religious minorities is not solely the province of governments. Civil society, including faith-based groups, has an important role to play as well. With this in mind, the Department of State will hold a conference on the Protection of Religious Minorities in the Middle East and South and Central Asia this winter. The conference will bring together civil society and religious leaders with senior government officials to focus on mobilizing additional resources and developing practical steps to protect vulnerable religious communities, both those in areas currently convulsed by war, and those who remain vulnerable in countries still at peace. No society can truly succeed unless it guarantees the rights of all its peoples, including religious minorities.

·Promoting International Religious Freedom: Promoting and protecting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy. In recognition of the increasingly important role that religion is playing in international affairs, and of the core importance of freedom of religion and conscience as a universal human right, the State Department is expanding training for its diplomats on how to monitor and advocate for religious freedom through both regional and Washington-based training opportunities. Concurrent with the visit of Pope Francis to the White House, the first in a series of regional conferences on religious freedom for diplomatic personnel is taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, and additional conferences will be scheduled for other regions over the next couple of years. The State Department is also working to expand content on protecting and promoting religious freedom around the world in training for mid and senior level career diplomats. The United States will continue to stand for the universal right of all people to practice their faiths in peace and in freedom.

·Cooperation with Cuba on Haiti Health Care: Pope Francis was instrumental in encouraging talks that led to the U.S.-Cuba rapprochement, and we will continue to seek his support as we proceed with the bilateral relationship. As President Obama said, “The Pope’s moral example shows us the importance of pursuing the world as it should be, rather than simply settling for the world as it is.” The United States and Cuba share common interests, among them the health and welfare of the people of Haiti. U.S. and Cuban medical professionals collaborated during the USNS Comfort’s stop in Haiti, including working together at a Catholic hospital. As with our previous cooperation on Ebola, this provided a unique opportunity to engage with Cuban medical professionals and to discuss opportunities for future cooperation. This cooperation demonstrates how our continued normalization of relations with Cuba can help us advance our interests in the Americas.

·Helping At-Risk Youth in Central America: Pursuant to a competitive awards process,the Department of Labor is making a $13 million grant to Catholic Relief Services for a project in El Salvador and Honduras providing critical skills to youth at risk of joining gangs so that they can instead join the workforce. The four-year program, called Youth Pathways – Central America, will provide training and employment services to approximately 5,100 low-income individuals ages 14 to 20 who reside in communities with high rates of violence. In addition, nearly 2,000 of the youths’ family members will benefit from training and holistic support services. This award is at the heart of President Obama’s $1 billion request for the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America. This strategy will aim to address the root causes of migration in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala and focus on three major pillars: prosperity, governance, and security.

Promoting Sustainable Development

This year marks a pivotal moment for global development. Global leaders will be gathering for three key negotiations – on development finance, a new development agenda, and climate change – which present the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to investing in a better future for the world’s children, and to ensure that all people are free from want and are able to live with dignity.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): World leaders will gather in New York this week to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals – which sets out a vision and shared commitment by 193 countries to pursue a common path to reducing poverty and increasing opportunity over the next 15 years. This Agenda represents an ambitious forward-lookingvision to eradicate extreme poverty, expand peace and good governance, combat inequality and discrimination, and raise the living standards of the most vulnerable. It enshrines our moral responsibility to ensure that all people have access to economic opportunity, the tools they need to change their lives, and the dignity that is possible when people can imagine and realize a productive and safe future. The pursuit of these goals could dramatically reduce poverty, and reflects a commitment to live up to the ideals and aspirations of all of our people and is grounded in a commitment to local ownership and shared responsibility.

Ending Extreme Poverty: If we marshal our political will, we have the tools, knowledge, and technologies necessary to end extreme poverty within two decades. There is progress upon which to build; aggregate poverty rates are now falling for every region of the world, and there are 700 million fewer people living in extreme poverty today than in 1990. Nonetheless, the challenge is still enormous, with 1.2 billion people still living in extreme poverty. But if the international community accelerates progress and achieves critical turnarounds in some of the most challenging environments, we believe that we can reduce that number by one billion by 2030. The development policy of and major development initiatives led by the United States are built on the premise that fighting extreme poverty and fostering sustained and inclusive growth, equal access to opportunity, and open and fair governance are one and the same mission. To further sharpen that mission, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) released this week its new Vision for Ending Extreme Poverty that sets forth our definition of extreme poverty; our understanding of what has driven progress; an analysis of pertinent trends and challenges; and a strategic framework for USAID’s ongoing commitment to this mission. Its release takes place at an important historical juncture, when we enjoy a growing bipartisan consensus in the United States on the importance of development, the support and engagement of the American people in support of development, and leadership from civil society, our NGO sector, the faith community, foundations, and the private sector. On September 22, USAID hosted an event with religious leaders and other stakeholders, entitled, Faith Works: Partnering to Advance Peace, Prosperity, and Development Around the World. At the event, senior administration officials and religious and civil society leaders discussed their vision for ending extreme poverty, the importance of the papal visit to this goal, and the role that faith-based, development and humanitarian relief organizations play in advancing peace and prosperity around the world.

Protecting our common home

In Pope Francis’s recent encyclical, Laudato Si, he calls for action at every level to protect our common home: globally through treaties and cooperation among governments; nationally through incentives, legislation, and regulation; and at the local and community levels. As Pope Francis says, “The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change… I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.” Later he states, “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political, and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”

President Obama is committed to meeting this challenge by finding viable and just solutions to address the erosion of our planet’s ecology, in particular climate change, in ways that also protect poor and vulnerable populations. The President believes we have a moral obligation to leave future generations a planet that is not polluted or damaged and recently said, “On this issue, of all issues, there is such a thing as being too late. That moment is almost upon us… That’s what we have to convey to our people — tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that.” During President Obama’s first year in office, he made a pledge that by 2020, America would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well. To reinforce this commitment, in June 2013, the President launched the Climate Action Plan, which consists of three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to combat global climate change and mitigate its effects. The President will continue to take steps to put the plan into effect, including by implementing America’s Clean Power Plan, which establishes the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants, the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the United States; increasing access to clean energy for all Americans; achieving an economy-wide target to reduce emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels in 2025; and by working with leaders throughout the world to reach a durable and ambitious agreement at this year’s climate conference in Paris. In addition, the Administration will pursue a host of other domestic and international efforts to tackle climate change.

As we take steps to address climate change through federal action, the Administration is also working with the growing number of non-governmental leaders and organizations that are promoting climate resiliency at home and abroad. Today, the Administration highlights a few of those collaborative efforts:

Promoting Climate Resiliency Around the World: Today, the Administration is announcing that Catholic Relief Services (CRS) will join the Climate Services for Resilient Development (CSRD) initiative as a contributing partner. The CSRD is an international public-private partnership that USAID launched this summer with seven other founding partners: the American Red Cross, Asian Development Bank, Esri, Google, Inter-American Development Bank, the Skoll Global Threats Fund, and the U.K. Government. The vision of the partnership is to identify the most effective means to create and provide, for the public good, climate data that is timely and useful, as well as information tools and services that are driven by needs and demands identified by end-users. This partnership relies upon the strengths and resources of public, private, philanthropic, and non-governmental organizations, multilateral institutions, and academic communities. CRS will capitalize on its extensive partner base, which includes other religious and non-religious organizations and direct links to farmers and extension services, to realize demand-driven climate services that meet adaptation needs and help to bridge gaps between technical climate information and local development challenges. In addition, CRS will leverage their existing climate resources and programs to scale tools and information in support of CSRD’s work. CRS’s multi-stakeholder approach – which unites research, public, private, and non-governmental sectors – will facilitate shared learning and the diversity of perspectives necessary for success in the provision of climate services.

Advancing Climate Justice and Preparedness at Home: An array of federal agencies are taking new steps in partnership with non-governmental organizations, including diverse faith-based and community groups, to promote environmental justice and climate resilience at home. The Climate Action Champions Interagency Working Group (IWG) is developing a webinar and other tools to share information with faith-based and community organizations, particularly in the local and tribal communities that were selected through a competitive process in recognition of their strong commitment to cut carbon pollution and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate. Faith-based and community organizations, including Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), a national network serving low income and vulnerable people, plan to work through local affiliates in these communities to use the IWG’s tools to convene conversations about ways to support the goals of the initiative. Also, over the next year, the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJIWG) will collaborate with CCUSA and other non-governmental organizations to increase awareness of the impacts of climate change in overburdened and underserved communities, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will work with faith-based and community organizations to make disaster preparedness information more accessible to vulnerable populations and to increase all-hazards preparedness planning for houses of worship.

ENERGY STAR at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with more than 1,500 diverse congregations, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist congregations, and with nonprofits and community groups, to save money and prevent pollution through increased energy and water efficiency. These organizations have committed to protect the environment and enhance their financial health through continuous improvement of energy performance in their respective facilities, and to educate their staff and community to aid in preserving the environment for future generations. EPA has provided dedicated webinars and focused technical support for a wide array of organizations, including GreenFaith, Interfaith Power and Light, Christian Reform Congregations, Seventh Day Adventists, Blessed Tomorrow, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Archdiocese of Chicago. EPA has also worked with the Evangelical Environmental Network and other religious bodies to develop its ENERGY STAR Action Workbook for Congregations. In addition, EPA has collaborated with nonprofit and community groups including Esperanza Capacity Institute, Green for All, ecoAmerica, and the Chicago Salvation Army. EPA’s ENERGY STAR also assisted in planning a 2015 White House Champions of Change event that focused on climate change, where leaders from the Islamic, Evangelical, Hindu, Catholic, Jewish, and Baptist traditions were among those recognized for greening their communities and educating others on the moral and social justice implications of climate change. During the past year, ENERGY STAR helped develop the EPA’s new “Food Stewardship Challenge” to help congregations and communities “feed people, not landfills.” This initiative is important for the environment because as wasted food decomposes, it converts to methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) will expand Resilience AmeriCorps in collaboration with Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), an existing AmeriCorps VISTA sponsor. The Rockefeller Foundation will provide continued training and technical support, with the expansion also leveraging the expertise of other Federal partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA. The Resilience AmeriCorps program recruits, trains, and embeds AmeriCorps VISTA members in communities across the country, where the effects of climate change are often most acutely felt, to help communities develop preparedness plans and assist local leaders as they plan for and address the impacts of extreme weather events. CNCS, the federal agency which administers AmeriCorps, in partnership with The Rockefeller Foundation, Cities of Service, NOAA, EPA, and DOE launched Resilience AmeriCorps in July. On August 20, CNCS and its partners announced the selection of ten pilot locations for the first cohort of Resilience AmeriCorps. Through the expansion announced today, AmeriCorps VISTA members will be placed in five to seven additional locations to help communities with significant immigrant and refugee populations become more resilient. These AmeriCorps VISTA members will develop plans to meet the needs of immigrant communities during disasters, including improving language access to necessary services and reducing other barriers to support.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
For Immediate Release July 25, 2014

Remarks

Secretary of State John Kerry
With UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, and Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby

July 25, 2014
Cairo, Egypt

FOREIGN MINISTER SHOUKRY: (Via interpreter.) Good evening. You know that Egypt is – the serious military escalation in Gaza and what the Palestinian people have been exposed to in terms of destruction – broad destruction and killing of civilians that claimed up until now over 800 civilians and thousands of injured. We are working incessantly to end this crisis and to spare the Palestinian people of the dangers it has been exposed to, and to prevent further military escalation. And this has led to the proposal – to us proposing our plan, and we should know that Egypt has not spared any effort to stop – or to reach a ceasefire to protect the Palestinian people and to allow for negotiations to start between the two parties in order to discuss all the issues, in order to restore stability in the Gaza strip, and to meet the needs of the brotherly Palestinian people, and to also prevent further violence which the Palestinian civilians have been exposed to.

We have continued our efforts since the beginning of the military escalation to achieve this goal in cooperation with the U.S. and the secretary-general of the UN and the secretary-general of the Arab League and other parties – other regional and international parties in order to achieve this goal. We once again call for the immediate ceasefire, a cease of all actions in order to protect the Palestinian people. And given that the parties have not shown any – sufficient willingness to stop this, we are calling for a humanitarian ceasefire to observe the holy days that we are on the verge of observing at the end of the holy month of Ramadan and the Eid for a period of seven days, in the hope that this will lead – will prompt the parties to heed the calls of conscience and humanitarian needs in order to reach a comprehensive ceasefire, and also begin negotiations in order to prevent the reoccurrence of this crisis.

And also, to propose a good framework for this objective, we have consulted over the last few days in order to formulate a formula that would be agreed to by all the sides, and also to stop the bloodshed. But unfortunately, we have to exert further effort in order to realize our common goals in this regard. The proposed ideas were focused or fell within the same framework that the Egyptian plan proposed. And once again, we will call on all parties to benefit from it and to accept it definitively. I would like on this occasion also to allow the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to speak.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. All right. Well, let me start again. I want to thank Sameh Shoukry and President al-Sisi and Egypt for their very warm welcome here, but most importantly for their continued efforts to try to find a way to achieve a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and then beyond that, to be able to resolve the critical issues that are underlying this conflict. I thank Sameh for his help today and the work we’ve been doing together. We’ve made some movement and progress, and I’ll talk about that in a minute.

I also want to thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who has traveled and worked tirelessly in these past days throughout the international community to try to bring people together, as well as Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby for his close partnership in this effort. They’ve been sources of good advice and also of tireless effort. So this is a broad effort with a broad based sense that something needs to be done.

I also want to acknowledge President Abbas who has traveled to any number of countries in recent days, and whom I met with just the other day, who expressed his desire – strong desire to achieve a ceasefire as rapidly as possible, and he has been passionately advocating for the Palestinian people and the future of the Palestinian state.

Let me just say that the agony of the events on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, all of them together, simply cannot be overstated. The daily reality for too many people of grief and blood and loss and tears, it all joins together to pull at the fabric of daily life in each of their communities.

In Israel, millions of people are living under constant threat of Hamas rocket fire and tunnel attacks, and they’re ready to take cover at any moment’s notice. And I’ve had telephone conversations with the prime minister interrupted by that fact. Earlier this week I had a chance to visit with the family of a young man by the name of Max Steinberg, an American – one of two Americans killed in this devastating conflict – and his mother Naftali Fraenkel[1], who was murdered at the outset – whose son was murdered at the very outset of this crisis.

So any parent in the world, regardless of somebody’s background, can understand the horror of losing a child or of seeing these children who are caught in the crossfire. In Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians have died over the past few weeks, including a tragic number of civilians. And we’ve all read the headlines and seen the images of the devastation: 16 people killed and more than 200 injured in just a single attack yesterday; women and children being wheeled away on stretchers; medics pulling shrapnel out of an infant’s back; a father nursing his three-year-old son. The whole world is watching a – tragic moment after tragic moment unfold and wondering: When is everybody going to come to their senses?

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians deserve and need to lead normal lives, and it’s time for everyone to recognize that violence breeds violence and that the short-term tactical gains that may be made through a violent means simply will not inspire the long-term change that is necessary and that both parties really want.

I have been in the region since Monday at the request of President Obama, and I’ve spent five days on the ground here and also in Israel in the West Bank engaging in countless discussions with leaders throughout the region and even around the world, conversations lasting, obviously, late into the night and through the day. We have gathered here, my colleagues and I have gathered here together because we believe that it is impossible for anybody to simply be inactive and not try to make government work to deal with this bloodshed. We need to join together and push back.

Specifically, here is what we’ve been working to try to bring about. At this moment, we are working toward a brief seven days of peace – seven days of a humanitarian ceasefire in honor of Eid, in order to be able to bring people together to try to work to create a more durable, sustainable ceasefire for the long run, and to work to create the plans for that long haul.

The fact is that the basic structure is built on the Egyptian initiative, but the humanitarian concept is one that Egypt has agreed to embrace in an effort to try to honor Eid and bring people together at this moment. Seven days, during which the fundamental issues of concern for Israel – security, the security of Israel and its people – and for the Palestinians – the ability to know that their social and economic future can be defined by possibilities, and that those issues will be addressed. We believe that Egypt has made a significant offer to bring people to Cairo – the factions, the Palestinian factions and representatives of interested states and the state of Israel – in order to begin to try to negotiate the way forward.

Now, why are we not announcing that that has been found yet tonight? For a simple reason: That we still have some terminology in the context of the framework to work through. But we are confident we have a fundamental framework that can and will ultimately work. And what we need to do is continue to work for that, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We believe that seven days will give all the parties the opportunity to step back from the violence and focus on the underlying causes, perhaps take some steps that could build some confidence, and begin to change the choices for all.

We don’t yet have that final framework, but I will tell you this: None of us here are stopping. We are going to continue the conversations. And right now, before I came in here tonight, I had conversations with people on both sides of this conflict. Just spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who made it clear that he wants to try to find this way forward. I think the Secretary-General, who has graciously called for a 12-hour ceasefire, will speak in a moment about that possibility and where it will go. And Prime Minister Netanyahu’s indicated his willingness to do that as a good-faith down payment and to move forward. And I’m grateful to the Secretary-General for his leadership in that regard.

But in the end, the only way that this issue is going to be resolved, this conflict, is for the parties to be able to come together and work through it as people have in conflicts throughout history. And it’s our hope, and we intend to do everything possible. Tomorrow, I will be in Paris, where I will meet with some of our counterparts, my counterparts, and where I will also meet with other players who are important to this discussion in an effort to be able to try to see if we can narrow the gap. And Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to try to help do that over the course of the next day.

So we begin with at least the hope of a down payment on a ceasefire, with the possibility of extension, a real possibility in the course of tomorrow. And hopefully, if we can make some progress, the people in this region who deserve peace can find at least one step towards that elusive goal. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Secretary-General.

SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN: Thank you, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry of Egypt, Secretary of State of the United States John Kerry, League of Arab States Secretary-General al-Araby. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Assalamu alaikum, Ramadan Kareem.

Let me begin by commending all the leaders here today. I’d like to particularly thank President Sisi of Egypt and Foreign Minister Shoukry as the host of this initiative to have made ceaseless efforts to bring all the parties together. And I also commend highly the leadership and commitment and tirelessly – tireless diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, and it has been a source of inspiration to work with all these distinguished colleagues. And I have been obviously closely working with League of Arab States Secretary General al-Araby.

This is my sixth day in the region visiting eight countries, 11 stops, meeting kings, amirs, presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, over meeting, over telephones. I have been working very closely with the leaders here as well as all the leaders in the region. I really appreciate their kind cooperation and leadership. Our joint effort is a clear signal of a global commitment to end the bloodshed and destruction that is tearing apart the lives of hope and the hopes of so many innocent civilians. People of Gaza have bled enough. They are trapped and besieged in a tiny, densely populated sliver of land. Every bit of it is a civilian area. The Israeli people have been living under the constant fear of Hamas rocket attacks. Tensions are spreading further. We are seeing growing unrest in the West Bank. Surely now, the parties must realize that it is time for them to act, and solutions must be based on three important issues.

First, stop the fighting. We called for a seven-day humanitarian ceasefire extending over the Eid period, beginning with a extendable 12-hour pause. Second, start talking. There is no military solution to addressing the grievances, and all parties must find a way to dialogue. Third, tackle the root causes of the crisis. This effort – peace effort – cannot be the same as it was the last two Gaza conflicts, where we reset the clock and waited for the next one. The ongoing fighting emphasizes the need to finally end the 47-year-old occupation, end the chokehold on Gaza, ensure security based on mutual recognition and achieve a viable two-state solution, by which Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security side by side.

Along with world and regional leaders, we continue to make every effort to forge a durable ceasefire for the people of Gaza and Israel based on those three pillars. Progress is being made, but there is much more work to do. We may not be satisfied with what we are now proposing, but we have to build upon what we are now proposing. In the meantime, more children are dying every hour of every day.

Ladies and gentlemen, today is the last Friday of Ramadan. The world is just away from marking Eid-al-Fitr. Let us all take inspiration from this season of peace and reflection. The United Nations is fully committed to ensuring the success of this proposal and securing hope and dignity for all the people of Palestine and Israel. And I thank you again for all leaders in the region and in the world who have been working together with the United Nations and the leaders here to bring peace and security to this region. I thank you very much. Shukran Jazilan.

MODERATOR: Thank you. (Via interpreter.) Secretary-general of the United – of the Arab League.

SECRETARY GENERAL AL-ARABY: (Via interpreter.) Thank you very much. I would like to thank also the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This is a very serious and grave situation. There are martyrs in Palestine have been – have died as a result of the Israeli aggression and the violation of the principles of international humanitarian law. People have been fired at, children are falling, and all civilians are being killed. This is the holiest month in the Islamic world, as those before me have mentioned. And on the eve of the Eid, we would like to support and uphold the idea of a ceasefire, as Mr. John Kerry has said and also the UN Secretary-General has said.

But before I conclude my very brief remarks, I would like to say that the occupation and the siege on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – these are occupied territories. We cannot imagine that the siege and the occupation, that there would be no resistance to them. For that reason, everyone should work to end this conflict. I would allow myself to say, in English and in very simple and brief language: (In English) In a very simple and concise way, that as much as I support the humanitarian (inaudible), but we have to look at it. I think everyone has to do that. We have to look ahead. Then it’s diplomacy, and then (inaudible) results. We have to dedicate ourselves, all of us, to reach a final solution. That means the end of the occupation. Thank you.

MODERATOR: (Via interpreter.) We will be taking four questions, from Arshad (inaudible) first of all.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) Good evening.

MODERATOR: (Via interpreter.) Mr. United Nations Secretary-General has to leave.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) Good evening. My question is for Mr. John Kerry and Minister Sameh Shoukry. You’ve launched this proposal or plan. Has there been – have there been contacts between the two sides, and how far have you reached in these contexts, especially that the Eid is approaching fast?

With respect to the rules of engagement that Israel uses in Israel and in Gaza and the West Bank, and what we’ve seen in terms of destruction of and demolishing of hospitals, have you received any guarantees from Israel that these actions would not be repeated? And thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to the negotiating process, it’s inappropriate to sort of lay out all the details, but of course we’re talking to everybody that we can talk to who has an ability to have an impact, and obviously I’m talking directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu and directly to other foreign ministers in the region, some of whom have different ways of talking with different factions of Palestinians, as well as talking to President Abbas. In the course of that, it’s very clear to me that under very difficult circumstances some are ready to move and others are reluctant and need assurances of one kind or another. And clearly, given the history, some of those assurances are sometimes difficult to be able to make and formulate appropriately so that somebody else doesn’t wind up being – struggling with them. That’s why the simplicity of this is really the best, which is come to the table and negotiate.

But to the degree that either side needs assurances of one thing or another being talked about, without outcomes, no preconditions, but something being negotiated and talked about, then you get in a contest of priorities and other kinds of things.

I believe we can work through those things. We have. The basic outline is approved by everybody. People believe that if the circumstances are right, the structure is right, a ceasefire makes sense, a ceasefire is important, and people would like to see the violence end. But it has to obviously be in ways that neither side feels prejudiced or their interests compromised.

So that’s what we’re working on. I think we’ve made serious progress. We sat today, worked some things out to deal with some of those sensitivities, but basically we still have some more things to do over the course of the next 24 or 48 hours, and we’re going to do that. My hope is that the 12 hours will be extended, perhaps to 24, and that people will draw from that the goodwill and effort to try to find a solution. But it takes – the parties have to come together and reach an understanding, and that’s what we’re going to continue to work on because it’s urgent for innocent people who get caught in the crossfire, and obviously the – as I said in my opening remarks, people in Israel deserve to live free from fear that their home or their school will be rocketed, but people in Palestine, the Palestinian territories and people in Gaza have a right to feel free from restraints on their life where they can barely get the food or the medicine or the building materials and the things that they need.

So there’s a lot on the table. It’s been complicated for a long time; it didn’t get easy last night. But we’re going to continue to work at this, and I’m confident that with goodwill, with good effort, I think progress can hopefully be made.

FOREIGN SECRETARY SHOUKRY: (Via interpreter.) Certainly, since the outbreak of the crisis in Gaza, we have been in contact with all parties, with the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas. We have expended serious efforts based on our own Egyptian initiative, and also in cooperation with the American side. I would like to seize this opportunity to thank you, to thank Mr. Kerry for his efforts and – that he has spent and continues to expend, and his cooperation in order to achieve a complete ceasefire to protect the Palestinian people.

Military action and the serious escalation and the serious strikes taking place against the Palestinian territories, including the West Bank, prove the importance of immediate action to end this crisis so that it would not result or lead to more serious ramifications, not just in the occupied territories, but in the region as a whole. The framework we talk about is a framework that is – that the U.S. Secretary of State has talked about – is based on the Egyptian initiative, and also based on the idea of encouraging the parties to interact with it, so that we can reach a complete ceasefire and seizure of all military action, and to also save civilians from being targeted, and to end the bloodshed, just like the strike against the school yesterday. Such actions should not be repeated and should completely end, and so should military action.

And a temporary humanitarian ceasefire should be accepted to give a chance, an opportunity for interaction between the various parties, and perhaps expand it beyond there, so that all parties would come to recognize that a comprehensive solution to all this crisis and to the Palestinian conflict should be reached, and also to establish a Palestinian state in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such a grave situation.

MODERATOR: (Via interpreter.) Arshad Mohammed.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, as I imagine you are aware, there are multiple reports that the Israeli cabinet today rejected the ceasefire proposal that you had on the table and said they wanted modifications. Do you regard that as just a negotiating ploy or do you regard it as likely to be a more definitive rejection?

And secondly, have you made any direct progress on getting the Egyptians to commit to opening Rafah, on getting the Israelis to commit to increasing traffic at the Erez crossing, and on getting Hamas to agree to let Israeli troops stay in the Gaza Strip during a truce? If you haven’t made any headway on those issues, how is it possible – after five days of diplomacy, how is it possible to describe these days as having produced serious progress?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me deal with the first issue, which is the fiction of diplomacy and of politics at the same time. There was no formal proposal or final proposal or proposal ready for a vote submitted to Israel. Let’s make that absolutely crystal clear. And Prime Minister Netanyahu called me a few minutes before this to make it clear that that is an error, inaccurate, and he’s putting out a statement to that effect. They may have rejected some language or proposal within the framework of some kind of suggestion at some point in time, but there was no formal proposal submitted from me on which there should have been a vote or on which a vote was ripe. We were having discussions about various ideas and various concepts of how to deal with this issue, and there’s always mischief from people who oppose certain things, and I consider that one of those mischievous interpretations and leaks which is inappropriate to the circumstances of what we’ve been doing and are engaged in.

With respect to the individual issues that you raised, I’m not going to make any announcements and I’m certainly not going to reveal issues that are of a bilateral nature between Egypt and the United States or the United States and another country, but I will simply tell you in a candid way that those issues were talked about, and I am satisfied with the responses that I received with respect to how they might affect the road ahead. And each and every one of them I believe there are ways of moving forward.

MODERATOR: (Via interpreter.) (Inaudible)

QUESTION: My question is for Secretary Kerry and the Egyptian foreign minister. First of all, it seems that all of those efforts, the phone calls, visits have led only to a ceasefire for seven hours. Why is the reasons for not having more achievements? Who is blockading having more achievements in this? Is it Israel, or is it Hamas? Is it the Palestinians? Who is going to – we are going to blame on this? Because we have heard that Israel refused. As you have said, it’s not correct, but it was published that Israel refused, actually, some ideas of having more ceasefire, more than seven hours.

Also, it seems that all of this is because the peace process has stopped, actually, because of the settlements of Israel. This is the main cause – the blockade of course, and other things on the Gaza, the boycotts on Gaza. People can’t have food or water or other things, but also the peace process have stopped. You have – Secretary Kerry have done a lot in this, and yet you didn’t say why, who is the reasons behind it stopping.

And my question is for our foreign minister, please. (Via interpreter.) There is a lot of talk about the Rafah Crossing, and that Egypt is – closes this crossing. And there’s also an attempt to blame the siege, the Israeli siege on Gaza, on Egypt, even though it has – Israel has closed six crossings and is responsible for the siege. Can there be some clarification with respect to the Rafah Crossing, and will it continue to be closed in the coming days?

FOREIGN MINISTER SHOUKRY: (Via interpreter.) Thank you. With respect to Rafah Crossing, I have repeatedly responded to this, but it seems no one is listening. Rafah Crossing is open continuously and at all times, but it has to be under regulation related to Egyptian policy, and it’s also related to the situation in Sinai. But it is open, and it receives constantly and permanently, around the clock, people from the Gaza Strip for treatment in Egyptian hospitals, and more than 600 or 700 tons of food and medical material have crossed. And the crossing has never been tied or linked to any kind of siege on the Gaza Strip.

The six Israeli crossings that you referred to, they have to be operational. And the responsibility of Israel as an occupation authority is what – it is the responsibility of Israel, and we have called for this in our initiative, that the Israeli crossings need to be open so that the needs and the humanitarian needs of the Gazans should be met, and so that also normal life would be restored to the Gaza Strip. I hope that this response will be widely shared and it’s clear without any attempt to internationalize or to misinterpret the situation.

SECRETARY KERRY: Actually, I think a great deal has been moved in the course of the last days. Though it doesn’t meet your eye yet, those of us who are working this have a feeling that gaps have been significantly narrowed on certain things, but obviously not everything yet.

And in fairness, it’s important to say that, yes, Israel had some questions or even opposition to one concept or another concept – that doesn’t mean to a proposal by any means – at an early stage of discussion. But most importantly, I think it’s important to note that in Ramadan, when everything is on a different schedule, it’s more complicated to be able to have some meetings, particularly when I am mediating between different people who talk to different people. And it’s secondhand, thirdhand, it takes longer. So there’s a certain time consumption in all of that.

But I’m not a – I’m not somebody who I think is going to stand here and misinterpret the difficulties. At the same time, I can recognize progress when I see it and a concept that has taken shape. And I think my colleagues would agree there’s a fundamental concept here that can be achieved if we work through some of the issues of importance to the parties. That’s the art, and sometimes it just doesn’t happen overnight or as quickly as you’d like. But it doesn’t mean it can’t.

And so – by the way, it’s not seven hours; it’s 12 hours with a very likely extension of another 12, hopefully for 24, but we’ll see. The proof will be in the pudding on that. And on the peace process, I’ve purposely tried not to start pointing fingers and getting involved, because to us, the process is not over. It hasn’t stopped, and it doesn’t help to be starting to point fingers. What you have to do is figure out, okay, where do you go from here and how. In the course of this conflict right now, I would respectfully suggest to you there are some very serious warnings about what happens when you don’t have that process, and what happens if you’re not working effectively to try to achieve a resolution of the underlying issues.

This is about the underlying issues. And what we need to do is get through this first. It’s a little surrealistic in the middle of this to be talking about the other process, but those people who have been at this for a long time, my colleagues here and others, absolutely know that that is at the bedrock of much of the conflict and the trouble that we all witness here and that is going to have to be resolved if there is a chance of peace, and we believe there is.

Egypt has been a leader on that. Years ago, Egypt took extraordinary risk, and we all know what the consequences were. Egypt made peace, and it has made a difference. And the truth is that today there’s a great commitment here and elsewhere in the region to be able to get back to the process and try to address those underlying issues.

So it’s not gone. It’s dormant for the moment. It’s in hiatus because of the events that are taking place. But the leaders I’ve talked to tell me that what they’re witnessing now and what they’re seeing now has reinforced in them the notion that they needed to get back to that table as soon as possible and begin to address those concerns.

I don’t know if you want to say anything on that.

SECRETARY GENERAL AL-ARABY: (Via interpreter.) Certainly, with respect to the peace process, we call for the resumption of negotiations under U.S. sponsorship. Based from the point we have – it has stopped at, we do not want to go back to the beginning, but several accomplishments have been made on several issues. And we have to build on this progress in order to reach our ultimate goal, which the entire international community has agreed to: the two-state solution, a Palestinian state on Palestinian land with East Jerusalem, and this is the final solution to this conflict. And this will give the Palestinian people a chance to have a normal life away from killing and destruction, and to also fulfill its aspirations – the aspirations of the Palestinian people in the region, and will also ultimately lead to a final end to the conflict.

MODERATOR: (Speaking in Arabic, not interpreted) at CBS, Margaret Brennan.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, given the protests that we’ve seen in the West Bank over the past 24 hours, which resulted in at least one fatality, do you believe – do you fear that a third intifada is about to happen? And could you clarify – when you said that there’s a difference of terminology in regard to these negotiations, that sounds technical rather conceptual. Can you clarify what you meant there?

SECRETARY KERRY: I can, but I won’t. (Laughter.) I think it’s important to let us work quietly on those things and not put them out in the public domain, but I applaud you for a worthy try.

With respect to the incidents and events on the West Bank, I have learned not to characterize something ahead of time or predict it, and I’m not going to now. But I do know that the leaders I’ve talked to in Israel, in the West Bank, in Jordan are deeply concerned about what they are seeing right now. And it is very, very necessary for all of us to take it into account as we think about the options that we have in front of us. It’s just enormously disturbing to see this kind of passion find its way into violent protests, and in some cases not violent.

But we need to address – it’s a statement to all of us in positions of responsibility, get the job done, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks.

# # #

[1] Max Steinberg’s mother’s name is Evie Steinberg, and Naftali Fraenkel is the name if the murdered American and Israeli teen.